1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA512 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 22/06/2011 07:42 μμ, Dane Smith wrote: |
5 |
> On 06/22/11 12:41, Markos Chandras wrote: |
6 |
>> On 22/06/2011 07:30 ¼¼, Dane Smith wrote: |
7 |
>>> On 06/22/11 12:18, Markos Chandras wrote: |
8 |
>>>> On 22/06/2011 06:47 ¼¼, Christoph Mende wrote: |
9 |
>>>>> On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: |
10 |
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
11 |
>>>>>> Hash: SHA512 |
12 |
>>>>>> |
13 |
>>>>>> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote: |
14 |
>>>>>>> - gpg control packet |
15 |
>>>>>>> All, |
16 |
>>>>>>> [..] |
17 |
>>>>>>> Thanks! |
18 |
>>>>>>> |
19 |
>>>>>>> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/ |
20 |
>>>>>>> |
21 |
>>>>>> Hi Dane, |
22 |
>>>>>> |
23 |
>>>>>> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you |
24 |
>>>>>> understand why that effort did not succeed |
25 |
>>>>>> |
26 |
>>>>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204 |
27 |
> |
28 |
>>>>> I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers |
29 |
>>>>> only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a |
30 |
>>>>> problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy |
31 |
>>>>> maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal |
32 |
>>>>> to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers. |
33 |
>>>>> So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me. |
34 |
> |
35 |
>>>> This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a |
36 |
>>>> package so users can step up and maintain a package |
37 |
>>>>> Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if |
38 |
>>>>> there were other concerns. |
39 |
> |
40 |
>>>> The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that |
41 |
>>>> you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the |
42 |
>>>> proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n |
43 |
>>>> (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> |
46 |
>>> Yes, that was one aim, but the primary aim is to reduce m-n packages. |
47 |
>>> That's what I've been doing so far and I think is what would be the |
48 |
>>> primary goal of this "new" project. |
49 |
> |
50 |
>> If this is the primary goal then you should try to merge it to |
51 |
>> treeclears project instead of creating a new one. Treecleaners is pretty |
52 |
>> much the only project that advertises the maintainer-needed packages so |
53 |
>> I think it makes sense to extend this project to meet your needs. We |
54 |
>> might need to rename the treecleaner project to reflect the extended |
55 |
>> goals if needed |
56 |
> |
57 |
>> [1]http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/maintainer-needed.xml |
58 |
> |
59 |
> That's a good idea. It would help reduce the number of packages that |
60 |
> have to get 'treecleaned' and it would have the added benefit that it |
61 |
> might attract some much needed help to that project. |
62 |
> |
63 |
> Short version: I'm all for that. |
64 |
> |
65 |
In this case, I would advice you to start a discussion with |
66 |
treecleaner@g.o so we can formalize the new project and come back |
67 |
to this mailing list to discuss it with the rest of the devhood |
68 |
|
69 |
- -- |
70 |
Regards, |
71 |
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 |
72 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
73 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) |
74 |
|
75 |
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOAiIpAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCdbgQAIt+Uedsfgfkm7DYbcced+8v |
76 |
21efLyccy/7Wr8ZDrUjmPZXGJ2IRvOmAxcJLmjYJPppSopoaGqKXUKMQ3SVnkwnf |
77 |
thwD6H4A8EZCeU9lNa0TeBo1Rf0+M0Zzq9NFSUMD5RSQaY4E2y6Zfo+DNxyfuuO8 |
78 |
sgFriaMd+HFWCDost8mgWyu5hATZOQ/QdhtxstCamI9QNcw46BG4UMFM9CKLucUi |
79 |
tNQTBqBuOLjQvxdmDCijJcD4qisRt0pFLFoYDrbJRljXs1KIbOzJEibmwQ/GEVrO |
80 |
nsJ/KxyI4l7fQrJPKPWoGmcpM4Ybnnrw8XCSOen9Cc7b2nk936FnbPhkw1ofPmkU |
81 |
uAOhA9b4Qgy70hSACn463jiz/vo7uTpKRlU6B8Bk49Bwi4dTuEi6xqkXukU4TUK2 |
82 |
7CO0gZ7Jp0o4wBab6ZJfHjK8PCUSpE9p2HPMFM0v6wZE8FRHTBwTDE5Uv6EfgOrW |
83 |
C+p5Ka5BfE/7jVlY8AX+Shmgnc6P1XMX+IjXNdjgWQPx7Er6+JWABLhbAH+pzPxd |
84 |
1OCR5n3cLJC4B0lGdx+n17SYkxiEU4Cu5Gxz7ppZ6srLJQKovmxIWfqzWTxCjjSc |
85 |
Q9sqbpTEr+z+rQ9PIidmdf9mDOsFX0SIQl85wS0sj6uv7xL4830a0Y/JxGXqsSOf |
86 |
/VLeVZIJc9+aNTXrqTKl |
87 |
=tbEE |
88 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |